Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page1 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant.

Case No.

12-cv-00630-LHK (PSG)

JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING PROPOSED FORM OF VERDICT

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page2 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The parties provide the following joint submission regarding proposed forms of verdict in accordance with the Courts January 24, 2014 Case Management Order (Dkt. No. 1158.) Attached as Exhibit A is Apples proposed form of verdict. Attached as Exhibit B is Samsungs proposed form of verdict.

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page3 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: February 25, 2014 By: /s/ Mark D. Selwyn Attorney for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant APPLE INC. By: /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis Attorney for Defendants and CounterclaimPlaintiffs SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC CHARLES K. VERHOEVEN (Bar No. 170151) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com KEVIN A. SMITH (Bar No. 250814) kevinsmith@quinnemanuel.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 KEVIN P.B. JOHNSON (Bar No. 177129 (CA); 2542082 (NY)) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com VICTORIA F. MAROULIS (Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 WILLIAM C. PRICE (Bar No. 108542) williamprice@quinnemanuel.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100

JOSH A. KREVITT (CA SBN 208552) jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com H. MARK LYON (CA SBN 162061) mlyon@gibsondunn.com GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211 Telephone: (650) 849-5300 Facsimile: (650) 849-5333 HAROLD J. McELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com JACK W. LONDEN (CA SBN 85776) jlonden@mofo.com RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) rkrevans@mofo.com RUTH N. BORENSTEIN (CA SBN 133797) rborenstein@mofo.com ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815) ejolson@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILLIAM F. LEE (pro hac vice) William.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page4 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

MARK D. SELWYN (CA SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE 10 I, Mark D. Selwyn, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 11 Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45 X.B., I hereby attest that Victoria F. Maroulis 12 has concurred in this filing. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

Dated: February 25, 2014

/s/ Mark D. Selwyn Mark D. Selwyn

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page5 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

EXHIBIT A

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page6 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, 22 v. 23 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 24 Counterclaim-Defendant. 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 12-CV-00630-LHK v. [PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case.

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page7 of 49

1 FINDINGS ON APPLES CLAIMS 2 APPLES PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG 3 1. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 9 of the 647 Patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) Accused Samsung Product Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Admire: (JX 28) Galaxy Nexus (JX 29) Galaxy Note (JX 30) Galaxy Note II (JX 31) Galaxy S II (JX 32) Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (JX 33) Galaxy S II Skyrocket (JX 34) Galaxy S III (JX 35) Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 (JX 36) Stratosphere (JX 37)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page8 of 49

1 2 3 4 5

2.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 25 of the 959 Patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) Accused Samsung Product Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

Admire: (JX 28) Galaxy Nexus (JX 29) Galaxy Note (JX 30) Galaxy Note II (JX 31) Galaxy S II (JX 32) Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (JX 33) Galaxy S II Skyrocket (JX 34) Galaxy S III (JX 35) Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 (JX 36) Stratosphere (JX 37)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page9 of 49

1 2 3 4 5

3.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 20 of the 414 Patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) Accused Samsung Product Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

Admire: (JX 28) Galaxy Nexus (JX 29) Galaxy Note (JX 30) Galaxy Note II (JX 31) Galaxy S II (JX 32) Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (JX 33) Galaxy S II Skyrocket (JX 34) Galaxy S III (JX 35) Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 (JX 36) Stratosphere (JX 37) 4. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 8 of the 721 Patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) Accused Samsung Product Admire: (JX 28) Galaxy Nexus (JX 29) Galaxy S II (JX 32) Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (JX 33) Galaxy S II Skyrocket (JX 34) Stratosphere (JX 37) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page10 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5.

If you found that Samsung Electronics America (SEA) or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) infringed in any of Questions 1 through 4, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the 647 Patent, 959 Patent, 414 Patent, and/or 721 Patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) Accused Samsung Product 647 Patent 959 Patent 414 Patent 721 Patent

Admire: (JX 28) Galaxy Nexus (JX 29) Galaxy Note (JX 30) Galaxy Note II (JX 31) Galaxy S II (JX 32) Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (JX 33) Galaxy S II Skyrocket (JX 34) Galaxy S III (JX 35) Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 (JX 36) Stratosphere (JX 37) 6. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) took action it knew or should have known would contribute to infringement of the 647 Patent, 959 Patent, 414 Patent, and/or 721 Patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.) Accused Samsung Product Admire: (JX 28) Galaxy Nexus (JX 29) Galaxy Note (JX 30) Galaxy Note II (JX 31) Galaxy S II (JX 32) Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (JX 33) Galaxy S II Skyrocket (JX 34) Galaxy S III (JX 35) Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 (JX 36) Stratosphere (JX 37) 647 Patent 959 Patent 414 Patent 721 Patent

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page11 of 49

1 2 3 4

7.

Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Samsung entitys infringement of any of the following patents was willful? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung).) Apple Patents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

647 Patent (Claim 9) 959 Patent (Claim 25) 414 Patent (Claim 20) 721 Patent (Claim 8) 172 Patent (Claim 18)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page12 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8.

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apples asserted patent claims are invalid? 647 Patent (Claim 9) 959 Patent (Claim 25) 414 Patent (Claim 20) 721 Patent (Claim 8) 172 Patent (Claim 18) Yes ____ (for Samsung) Yes ____ (for Samsung) Yes ____ (for Samsung) Yes ____ (for Samsung) Yes ____ (for Samsung) No ____ (for Apple) No ____ (for Apple) No ____ (for Apple) No ____ (for Apple) No ____ (for Apple)

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page13 of 49

1 DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG (IF APPLICABLE) 2 9. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple? $ ______________________.

10.

a. For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 9, please provide the dollar breakdown for the following products: Amount

Accused Samsung Product Admire: (JX 28) Galaxy Nexus (JX 29) Galaxy Note (JX 30) Galaxy Note II (JX 31) Galaxy S II (JX 32) Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (JX 33) Galaxy S II Skyrocket (JX 34) Galaxy S III (JX 35) Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 (JX 36) Stratosphere (JX 37)

b. For the dollar amount in your answer to Question 9, please provide the dollar breakdown for the following products and following periods: Accused Samsung Product Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Galaxy S II Skyrocket August 1, 2011 June 30, 2012 July 1, 2012 August 24, 2012 August 25, 2012 Present

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page14 of 49

1 SAMSUNGS PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE 2 3 11. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple has infringed the indicated Samsung patent claims?

(Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Samsung), or with an N for no (for Apple). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)

10

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page15 of 49

1 12. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Yes _______ (for Apple) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsungs asserted patent claims are invalid? 087 Patent Claim 10: 596 Patent Claim 13: 449 Patent Claim 27: 239 Patent Claim 1: Claim 15: Yes ______ (for Apple) Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Samsung) Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung) Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)

PATENT EXHAUSTION 13. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple? a. 087 Patent No _______ (for Samsung)

b.

596 Patent Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)

11

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page16 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE (IF APPLICABLE) 14. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple on the claims on which you have ruled in favor of Samsung? You may not award damages for any patent that you found exhausted in your answer to Question 13. $ ______________________.

15.

For the total dollar amounts in your answers to Question 14, please provide the breakdown by patent: 087 Patent: $_____________________

8 596 Patent: $ ____________________ 9 239 Patent: $ ____________________ 10 449 Patent: $ ____________________ 11 12 16. 13 14 Accused Samsung Product 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

For the total dollar amounts in your answers to Questions 14, please provide the dollar breakdown for the following products. Amount

iPhone 4 (JX 38) iPhone 4S (JX 39) iPhone 5 (JX 40) iPad 2 (JX 41) iPad 3rd gen. (JX 42) iPad 4th gen. (JX 43) iPad mini (JX 44 ) iPod touch 4th gen. (JX 45) iPod touch 5th gen. (JX 46) MacBook Pro (JX 47)

12

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page17 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6

BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS 17. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung breached its contractual obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights (IPR) during the creation of the UMTS standard or by failing to license its declared essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms? Yes _______ (for Apple) 18. No _______ (for Samsung)

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

If you answered Yes to Question 17, what is the dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsungs breach of contract? $ ______________________.

Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

Signed:

Date: PRESIDING JUROR

PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

13

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page18 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG)

EXHIBIT B

14

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page19 of 49

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) 2 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 4 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com 6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 8 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 9 William C. Price (Cal. Bar No. 108542) 10 williamprice@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 11 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 12 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 14 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 15 16 17 18 19 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 20 21 vs. Plaintiff, SAMSUNGS PROPOSED VERDICT FORM Judge: Place: Trial Date: Hon. Lucy H. Koh Courtroom 1, 5th Floor March 31, 2014 at 9 A.M. CASE NO. 12-CV-00630-LHK (PSG) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

22 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG 23 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG 24 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 25 Defendants. 26 27 28

Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK (PSG) SAMSUNGS PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page20 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case. FINDINGS ON APPLES CLAIMS 1. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) infringed claim 20 of the 414 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung), and for each product for which you answer with a Y for yes indicate the date Apple provided Samsung written notice that such product infringed the 414 patent. Do not answer for any cell that is blacked out). Accused Samsung Product Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Telecommunicatio ns America, LLC Date of Notice

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

Case No. 11-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page21 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

2.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 20 of the 414 patent, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), knowing of the 414 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) to infringe claim 20 of the 414 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page22 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

3.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 20 of the 414 patent, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) supplied an important component of the infringing part of the product; that the component was not a common component suitable for non-infringing use; and that SEC, SEA, or STA supplied the component with knowledge of the 414 patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere 4. Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 20 of the 414 patent is invalid? Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page23 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

5.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) infringed claim 8 of the 721 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung), and and for each product for which you answer with a Y for yes indicate the date Apple provided Samsung written notice that such product infringed the 721 patent. Do not answer for any cell that is blacked out). Accused Samsung Product Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Telecommu nications America, LLC Date of Notice

Admire (Release EH02) [Tongue/Dot Design] Galaxy Nexus Ice Cream Sandwich Galaxy Nexus Jelly Bean Galaxy S II (Releases I777UCKH7, I777UCKK6, T989UVKID, T989UVKL1) [Tongue/No Dot Design] Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (Releases EG30, EK02, EL29) [Tongue/No Dot Design] Galaxy S II Skyrocket (Releases: I727UCKJ2, I727UCKK1 ) [Tongue/No Dot Design] Stratosphere (Release EI2) [Puzzle]

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page24 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 8 of the 721 patent, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), knowing of the 721 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) to infringe claim 8 of the 721 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.) Accused Samsung Product Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Admire (Release EH02) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5

[Tongue/Dot Design] Galaxy Nexus Ice Cream Sandwich Galaxy Nexus Jelly Bean Galaxy S II (Releases I777UCKH7, I777UCKK6, T989UVKID, T989UVKL1) [Tongue/No Dot Design] Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (Releases EG30, EK02, EL29) [Tongue/No Dot Design] Galaxy S II Skyrocket (Releases: I727UCKJ2, I727UCKK1 ) [Tongue/No Dot Design] Stratosphere (Release EI2) [Puzzle]

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page25 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

7.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 8 of the 721 patent, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) supplied an important component of the infringing part of the product; that the component was not a common component suitable for non-infringing use; and that SEC, SEA, or STA supplied the component with knowledge of the 721 patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.) Accused Samsung Product Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Admire (Release EH02) [Tongue/Dot Design] Galaxy Nexus Ice Cream Sandwich Galaxy Nexus Jelly Bean Galaxy S II (Releases I777UCKH7, I777UCKK6, T989UVKID, T989UVKL1) [Tongue/No Dot Design] Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (Releases EG30, EK02, EL29) [Tongue/No Dot Design] Galaxy S II Skyrocket (Releases: I727UCKJ2, I727UCKK1 ) [Tongue/No Dot Design] Stratosphere (Release EI2) [Puzzle]

8.

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 8 of the 721 patent is invalid? Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

25 26 27 28 -6
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page26 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

9.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) infringed claim 25 of the 959 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung), and and for each product for which you answer with a Y for yes indicate the date Apple provided Samsung written notice that such product infringed the 959 patent. Do not answer for any cell that is blacked out). Accused Samsung Product Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Telecommun ications America, LLC Date of Notice

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page27 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

10.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 25 of the 959 patent, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), knowing of the 959 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) to infringe claim 25 of the 959 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page28 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

11.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 25 of the 959 patent, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) supplied an important component of the infringing part of the product; that the component was not a common component suitable for non-infringing use; and that SEC, SEA, or STA supplied the component with knowledge of the 959 patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

12.

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 25 of the 959 patent is invalid? Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

-9

Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page29 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -10
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

13.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) infringed claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Browser application in Samsung products with the Gingerbread or Ice Cream Sandwich versions of Android? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung), and for each product for which you answer with a Y for yes indicate the date Apple provided Samsung written notice that such product infringed the 647 patent. Do not answer for any cell that is blacked out).

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung Telecommun ications America, LLC

Date of Notice

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Stratosphere

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page30 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -11
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

14.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Browser application in Samsung products with the Gingerbread or Ice Cream Sandwich versions of Android, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), knowing of the 647 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) to infringe claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Browser application in Samsung products with the Gingerbread or Ice Cream Sandwich versions of Android? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page31 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

15.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Browser application in Samsung products with the Gingerbread or Ice Cream Sandwich versions of Android, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) supplied an important component of the infringing part of the product; that the component was not a common component suitable for non-infringing use; and that SEC, SEA, or STA supplied the component with knowledge of the 647 patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page32 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -13
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

16.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) infringed claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Browser application in Samsung products with the Jelly Bean version of Android? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung), and and for each product for which you answer with a Y for yes indicate the date Apple provided Samsung written notice that such product infringed the 647 patent. Do not answer for any cell that is blacked out).

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung Telecommun ications America, LLC

Date of Notice

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Stratosphere

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page33 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

17.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Browser application in Samsung products with the Jelly Bean version of Android, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), knowing of the 647 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) to infringe claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Browser application in Samsung products with the Jelly Bean version of Android? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

-14

Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page34 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

18.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Browser application in Samsung products with the Jelly Bean version of Android, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) supplied an important component of the infringing part of the product; that the component was not a common component suitable for non-infringing use; and that SEC, SEA, or STA supplied the component with knowledge of the 647 patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

-15

Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page35 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -16
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

19.

For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) infringed claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Messenger application? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung), and for each product for which you answer with a Y for yes indicate the date Apple provided Samsung written notice that such product infringed the 647 patent. Do not answer for any cell that is blacked out).

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung Telecommun ications America, LLC

Date of Notice

Admire Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II (Ice Cream Sandwich, Jelly Bean) Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (Ice Cream Sandwich, Jelly Bean) Galaxy S II Skyrocket (Ice Cream Sandwich) Galaxy S III Stratosphere

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page36 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -17
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

20.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Messenger application, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), knowing of the 647 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) to infringe claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Messenger application? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page37 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

21.

For each of the following products that you found infringed claim 9 of the 647 patent through the Messenger application, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) supplied an important component of the infringing part of the product; that the component was not a common component suitable for non-infringing use; and that SEC, SEA, or STA supplied the component with knowledge of the 647 patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Samsung Product

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Admire Galaxy Nexus Galaxy Note Galaxy Note II Galaxy S II Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch Galaxy S II Skyrocket Galaxy S III Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 Stratosphere

22.

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 9 of the 647 patent is invalid? Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

-18

Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page38 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

23.

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 18 of the 172 patent is invalid? Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

-19

Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page39 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG 24. What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple, if any? $________________________________. 25. How is the total amount of damages stated in Question No. 24 divided? Lost profits Reasonable royalty 26. $__________ $__________

For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question No. 24, please provide the dollar breakdown by product and asserted claim 414 Patent Claim 20 172 Patent Claim 18 721 Patent Claim 8 959 Patent Claim 25 647 Patent Claim 9

Accused Samsung Product Admire (JX 28) Galaxy Nexus (JX 29) Galaxy Note (JX 30) Galaxy Note II (JX 31) Galaxy S II (JX 32) Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (JX 33) Galaxy S II Skyrocket (JX 34) Galaxy S III (JX 35) Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 (JX 36) Stratosphere (JX 37)

TOTAL

-20

Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page40 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 28. Accused Apple Product iPhone 4 (JX 38) iPhone 4S (JX 39) iPhone 5 (JX 40) iPad 2 (3G) (JX 41) iPad 3 (3G) (JX 42) iPad 4 (3G) (JX 43) 27.

FINDINGS ON SAMSUNGS CLAIMS For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple infringed claim 10 of the 087 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Samsung), or with an N for no (for Apple). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

087 Patent Claim 10

iPad Mini (3G) (JX 44)

If in response to Question No. 27 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent claim, has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apples infringement was willful? Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 10 of the 087 patent is invalid? 087 Patent Claim 10: Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)

-21

Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page41 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -22
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

30.

For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple infringed claim 13 of the 596 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Samsung), or with an N for no (for Apple). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Apple Product iPhone 4 (JX 38) iPhone 4S (JX 39) iPhone 5 (JX 40) iPad 2 (3G) (JX 41) iPad 3 (3G) (JX 42) iPad 4 (3G) (JX 43) iPad Mini (3G) (JX 44)

596 Patent Claim 13

31.

If in response to Question No. 30 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent claim, has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apples infringement was willful? Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

32.

Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 13 of the 596 patent is invalid? 596 Patent Claim 13: Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page42 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -23
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

33.

For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple infringed claim 1 and/or claim 15 of the 239 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Samsung), or with an N for no (for Apple). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Apple Product iPhone 4 (JX 38) iPhone 4S (JX 39) iPhone 5 (JX 40) iPad 2 (JX 41) iPad 3 (JX 42) iPad 4 (JX 43) iPad Mini (JX 44) iPod Touch, 4th gen. (JX 46) iPod Touch, 5th gen. (JX 45) MacBook Pro (JX 47)

239 Patent Claim 1 Claim 15

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page43 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -24
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

34.

For each of the following products that you found infringed the indicated Samsung patent claim, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple, knowing of the 239 patent, took action that it knew or should have known would induce anyone to infringe claim 1 of that patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Samsung), or with an N for no (for Apple). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.) Accused Apple Product iPhone 4 (JX 38) iPhone 4S (JX 39) iPhone 5 (JX 40) iPad 2 (JX 41) iPad 3 (JX 42) iPad 4 (JX 43) iPad Mini (JX 44) iPod Touch, 4th gen. (JX 46) iPod Touch, 5th gen. (JX 45) MacBook Pro (JX 47) 239 Patent Claim 1

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page44 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -25
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

35.

For each of the following products that you found infringed the indicated Samsung patent claim, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple, supplied an important component of the infringing part of the product; that the component was not a common component suitable for non-infringing use; and that Apple supplied the component with knowledge of the Samsung patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Samsung), or with an N for no (for Apple). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.) Accused Apple Product iPhone 4 (JX 38) iPhone 4S (JX 39) iPhone 5 (JX 40) iPad 2 (JX 41) iPad 3 (JX 42) iPad 4 (JX 43) iPad Mini (JX 44) iPod Touch, 4th gen. (JX 46) iPod Touch, 5th gen. (JX 45) MacBook Pro (JX 47) 239 Patent Claim 1

36.

If in response to Question Nos. 33, 34 and/or 35 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent claim, has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apples infringement was willful? Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

37.

Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 1 and/or claim 15 of the 239 patent is invalid? 239 Patent Claim 1: Claim 15: Yes _______ (for Apple) Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Samsung)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page45 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

38.

For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple infringed claim 27 of the 449 patent? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Samsung), or with an N for no (for Apple). Do not answer any cell that is blacked out.)

Accused Apple Product iPhone 4 (JX 38) iPhone 4S (JX 39) iPhone 5 (JX 40) iPad 2 (JX 41) iPad 3 (JX 42) iPad 4 (JX 43) iPad Mini (JX 44) iPod Touch, 4th gen. (JX 46) iPod Touch, 5th gen. (JX 45) MacBook Pro (JX 47) 39.

449 Patent Claim 27

If in response to Question No. 38 you found that Apple has infringed claim 27 of the 449 Patent, has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apples infringement was willful? Yes _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Apple)

40.

Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that claim 27 of the 449 patent is invalid? 449 Patent Claim 27: Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)

-26

Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page46 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -27
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE 41. What is the dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsungs patent infringement claims on the 087 and 596 patents? $_______________________________________. 42. For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 41, please provide the dollar breakdown by product and asserted claim Accused Apple Product iPhone 4 (JX 38) iPhone 4S (JX 39) iPhone 5 (JX 40) iPad 2 (3G) (JX 41) iPad 3 (3G) (JX 42) iPad 4 (3G) (JX 43) iPad Mini (3G) (JX 44) 087 Patent Claim 10 596 Patent Claim 13 TOTAL

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page47 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -28
Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

43.

What is the dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsungs patent infringement claims on the 449 and 239 patents? $_______________________________________.

44.

For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 43, please provide the dollar breakdown by product and asserted claim Accused Apple Product 449 Patent Claim 27 239 Patent Claim 1 and/or 15 TOTAL

iPhone 4 (JX 38) iPhone 4S (JX 39) iPhone 5 (JX 40) iPad 2 (JX 41) iPad 3 (JX 42) iPad 4 (JX 43) iPad Mini (JX 44) iPod Touch, 4th gen. (JX 46) iPod Touch, 5th gen. (JX 45) MacBook Pro (JX 47)

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page48 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 47. 14 15 16 17 48. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 46.

FINDINGS ON APPLES COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS 45. Has Apple proven that the patents in suit are essential to the UMTS standard? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung).) 087 Patent 596 Patent Yes _______ (for Apple) Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Samsung)

Has Apple proven that Samsung breached its contractual obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights (IPR) during the creation of the UMTS standard ? Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)

Has Apple proven that Samsung breached its contractual obligations by failing to license its declared essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms? Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung)

If you answered Yes to Question No. 46 or Question 47, what is the dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsungs breach of contract? $_______________________________________.

-29

Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1339 Filed02/25/14 Page49 of 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PATENT EXHAUSTION 49. If you answered Yes to either question 27 or 30 as to the iPhone 4 and/or iPad2 products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple products that implement the PMB 9801 chipset? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung).) 087 Patent 596 Patent Yes _______ (for Apple) Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Samsung)

50.

If you answered Yes to either question 27 or 30 as to any of the iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 3, iPad 4, or iPad Mini products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple products that implement MDM6610, MDM9600, or MDM9610 chipsets? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Apple), or with an N for no (for Samsung).) 087 Patent 596 Patent Yes _______ (for Apple) Yes _______ (for Apple) No _______ (for Samsung) No _______ (for Samsung)

Have the presiding juror sign and date this form. Signed:________________________________ Date:_______________________________ PRESIDING JUROR

-30

Case No. 12-cv-00630 SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM